The Supreme Court has advised lower courts to exercise caution in cases of domestic cruelty filed under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing that distant relatives of husbands should not be unnecessarily implicated based solely on complaints from wives.

A bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal quashed a first information report (FIR) against the cousin brother of the accused husband and the cousin’s wife, who were named in the FIR filed by the wife’s father. 

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court after the Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to quash the case. Criticizing the high court's stance, the Supreme Court emphasized that it is the duty of the high court to scrutinize whether allegations against distant relatives of the husband are exaggerated.

The Supreme Court has clarified that a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be filed to dismiss a chargesheet even before charges are framed. The Court emphasized that dismissing such an application solely on the ground that the accused can raise legal and factual issues at the time of charge framing would not serve the interests of justice.

The bench noted that the term "relative" is not defined in law and must be interpreted in its commonly understood sense. This generally includes individuals such as a person's parents, children, siblings, nephews, nieces, grandchildren, or spouses.

After examining the FIR, the final report, and the accompanying material, the bench concluded that there was no evidence on record to substantiate the offences alleged against the accused.

"To make the accused face trial on the basis of such allegations or indictment would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court," the Supreme Court said.

Referring to a 2010 judgment, the bench emphasized that courts must remain vigilant in matrimonial disputes, cautioning against the failure to evaluate whether allegations are exaggerated or if individuals not closely related to the husband's family are unjustly implicated.

In the present case, Amit Sharma, the primary accused, married Vandana Sharma in February 2019. The following month, Amit Sharma moved to Canada, while Vandana Sharma stayed with her in-laws at their matrimonial home in Jalandhar. In December 2019, Vandana Sharma also relocated to Canada. Subsequently, in September 2020, Amit Sharma filed for divorce in a Canadian family court.

In December 2020, Vandana's father filed an FIR implicating all the accused, including the petitioner and her husband, alleging various offences.